Our political insider details reports originating from inside the White House regarding President Obama having become increasingly depressed and uncertain over how to proceed following the impending midterm elections in November – elections that appear poised to sweep Democrats from power in Congress.

So you state that President Obama is depressed? How did you come by this information?
From a direct source still working within the White House on a daily basis. As I had stated previously, tensions at the White House have reached a critical stage. The infighting among staff is off the charts. More recently, the president has increasingly withdrawn emotionally from the day to day demands of his job – he has become what was described to me as “empty”.

Empty? That is correct – empty.

Do you mean to say the president is not doing his job?
Not exactly. He is there, he is getting briefed throughout the day, but President Obama appears to have emotionally shut down, not entirely mind you, but a great deal. It has worsened since I was last there. His natural detachment has become almost chronic to the point of being disconcerting to staff around him. It appears President Obama is suffering from severe depression.

You’re not a doctor, how are you qualified to make such a charge?
No, I’m not a doctor, but from all the reports coming back to me, and from what I did see with my own eyes prior to leaving the White House myself, I think it is a very reasonable assumption to make. President Obama is emotionally shutting down. He is a terribly depressed man.

And why do you think this is happening?
Well for one, he was completely unprepared for the job of being President of the United States. The demands on one’s time, the emotional and physical toll, are considerable. Second, the failure of the administration to effectively communicate to the American people. You have to understand that Obama believed that his ability to orate would be enough – that is proving to have been a considerable mistake on Obama’s part, and he is not dealing particularly well with that reality.

But you are no longer at the White House, correct?
That is correct.

So why then should your opinion on the condition of President Obama be viewed as legitimate?
I certainly understand a healthy dose of scepticism. I still wish to remain anonymous, and for those still supporting the president, I would understand how they would wish to dismiss any reports that diminish President Obama in any way. The fact remains though, I know what I know. And I know what I have been told by very reliable sources still at the White House. There are staff increasingly dissatisfied with this president. When that happens, word starts to get out.

But still…(interrupting) I would also add what you well know. I have been quite accurate on my previous discussions with you. I indicated there would be a mass exodus of staff from the White House days and even weeks prior to those leaving became public. Larry, David, Rahm, and more have or are in the process of leaving. Your readers need only check the dates of when you published with the public announcements of those departures to confirm that fact. I have been very truthful. I indicated Pelosi was under intense pressure and challenge from within her own party. That has also proven to be accurate. What I have told you to date has been the very thing that has developed surrounding the White House – and what I am telling you now is also just as accurate.

I looked into removing a sitting President from mental illness & came across this interesting piece from an MD:

– We obviously need mentally competent Presidents of the United States

– We need better laws to ensure such mental competency both prior to and while holding such an important office

– We need to ensure that psychiatric evaluation,diagnosis,and treatment of Presidents are as free as possible from any influence whatsoever from partisan politics.

~ I must query, if we cannot get him to produce a valid BC, how can we make him do anything?!

About a year ago (Jan 2006) an excellent article which studied biographical source material in 37 presidents from 1776 to 1974 was published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases on the topic of Mental Illness in U.S. Presidents… and concluded that 18 presidents (49%) met criteria suggesting psychiatric diagnoses and in 10 instances (27%)”a disorder was evident during presidential office, which in most cases probably impaired job performance”. Thankfully the authors concluded that no national calamities appeared to have occurred due to presidential mental illness.

In 1967 the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified which addresses transfer of power in cases of presidential illness or death precipitated by the tragic assassination of President John Kennedy in 1963.

Sufficed to say that psychiatric status is often ommitted from any or most of our own health evaluations. Yet for the President of the United States – past, present and future- I would focus on that first and foremost.

In our increasingly volatile world it seems like a pretty important priority to me?

This time, the perilously liberal Clift claimed policy proposals set forth in the Republican “Pledge to America” were “extreme.”

“They should have just stood aside and let [the upcoming elections] be a referendum on the Democrats,” claimed Clift.

“This election is a referendum on progressivism,” countered Crowley. “What Eleanor refers to as extreme politics, as extreme policies in the Pledge, we are talking about cutting taxes, limiting government, cutting the deficit.”

This angered Clift who screeched, “Don’t misquote me”

PAT BUCHANAN: This is not a pro-GOP election at all. Of course, that’s out at Madison, Wisconsin.

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: What do you mean by that?

BUCHANAN: What I mean is people are voting against. They are coming out to vote against Obama…

MCLAUGHLIN: That’s the intensity factor.

BUCHANAN: …Pelosi and Reid and debts and deficits and unemployment. And this is why the Republicans made a terrible mistake. The party of no was winning, and so they come out here and say…

ELEANOR CLIFT: Yeah.

BUCHANAN: …”Look, here’s the things we are going to do.” Put a target on their back. Interrupted their own momentum.

CLIFT: Right.

BUCHANAN: This is an anti-election.

CLIFT: They should have just stood aside and let it be a referendum on the Democrats.

BUCHANAN: Exactly.

CLIFT: Instead, they put their extreme proposals out there.

Seems pretty clear, right?

Buchanan was making the case that the Republicans were sitting pretty and didn’t need to put anything in writing that Democrats could campaign against. Clift agreed claiming the proposals the GOP put out in were extreme.

With this in mind, when Crowley got her chance a few minutes later, she took exception to this assertion:

MONICA CROWLEY: This election is a referendum on progressivism. Okay, progressivism has destroyed this economy…

MCLAUGHLIN: You mean liberalism.
CLIFT: No, no, no.

CROWLEY: …it’s taken it back…No, I’m talking about progressivism.

CLIFT: No, no, no, no, no.

CROWLEY: What Eleanor refers to as extreme politics, as extreme policies in the Pledge, we are talking about cutting taxes, limiting government, cutting the deficit.

MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor, pick it up.

CLIFT: Don’t misquote me, please.

MCLAUGHLIN: Alright, finish your point.

CLIFT: Don’t misquote me. I was talking about extreme policies that Republican candidates are running on that the Republican leaders on Capitol Hill don’t want to be part of.

CROWLEY: Let me just button up my point then. Let me clarify. Let me just button up my point. The extreme policies that she’s referring to are limited government, lowering the tax burden, constitutional government, reducing the national debt and deficit. Not exactly radical.

Not at all radical – unless you’re a liberal media member like Eleanor Clift.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Legally, it’s pretty much always okay to take photos in a public place as long as you’re not physically interfering with traffic or police operations. As Bert Krages, an attorney who specializes in photography-related legal problems and wrote Legal Handbook for Photographers, says, “The general rule is that if something is in a public place, you’re entitled to photograph it.” What’s more, though national-security laws are often invoked when quashing photographers, Krages explains that “the Patriot Act does not restrict photography; neither does the Homeland Security Act.”

PS: Via Doug Ross, who also has a fairly graphic comparison of just how big the aforementioned rally was. Hey, remember the days when we kept getting told over and over again how great progressives were at drawing a crowd?
Yeah, what happened with that?

Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Ariz. told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama has “got his hands wrapped around our throat” as his administration sues the state of Arizona for trying to enforce the immigration laws that the federal government itself will not enforce.

Dever also said he has “zero confidence” Obama will secure the border before his presidential term is up in two years and that the president is putting the people who live and work in Cochise County at risk by willfully failing to secure that border so that he can maintain political leverage for his goal of winning an amnesty for illegal aliens.

CNSNews videotaped an interview with Dever on Aug. 13, the same day Obama signed a $600 million bill to provide 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents. When asked whether he believes Obama actually wants to secure the border, Dever said that Obama did not want to do so.

“No. He’s as much as said so,” said Dever. “He’s playing the border security card, holding that, his trump card, to get immigration reform. And he’s basically said, you’re not going to get the kind of border enforcement you want, you’re asking for, unless you give me immigration reform.”

Terence P. Jeffrey Web Interview:

Cochise County is one of four counties in the state of Arizona that is contiguous with the Mexican border. Dever, a native of the county, was first elected sheriff in 1996 and has worked in local law enforcement in the county for three decades.

When CNSNews.com asked Dever if he was saying that President Obama was putting ranchers, other people in his county and the even Border Patrol agents who worked there at risk by holding off on securing the border while trying to win an amnesty for illegal aliens, Dever said: “If that’s what it seems like I’m saying, let me just make it perfectly clear, as the president likes to say: That’s exactly what I’m saying.”

Asked how much confidence he has that President Obama will eventually secure the border before his term of office ends in two years, Dever said: “I have zero confidence in that.”

“While this new funding is welcome, it’s still far short,” Dever said of the bill the president signed that day. “It’s an improvement, and we welcome that. But what really irritates me, really irritates me, is that while throwing out all this money in the government, he’s suing us on the other hand.”

Dever was referring to the lawsuit brought against Arizona by the U.S. Justice Department seeking to block an Arizona law enacted earlier this year that requires local law enforcement officers in Arizona to determine the immigration status of someone they stop for another reason and then have a reasonable basis for suspecting may be an illegal alien. In July, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking enforcement of key provision of the Arizona law, and it is now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“So, he’s got his hands wrapped around our throat—to use a Gulf oil—his foot on our throat, to use a Gulf-oil-spill metaphor, and, holding out a few crumbs in his hand and saying eat this,” said Dever.

“Lift the lawsuit, Mr. President, and drop that thing. Let Arizona take its leadership role like it’s willing to do. We’ll help. We’ll do more good with that than anything else that’s going on right now. Other states are getting on board. And then give us the resources we need to get this thing done.”

Much will be made of Rahm Emanuel’s ties to President Barack Obama as Emanuel returns to Chicago in preparation for a mayoral run, but he also will have to deal with his connections to the state’s most toxic politician — former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

During a hugfest at the White House Friday to announce his departure as chief of staff, Emanuel told the president he was “eager to see what I can do to make our hometown even greater.”

Back in Chicago, though, Emanuel will face questions about his earlier role as the envoy for the president-elect in discussions with Blagojevich over whom the governor should appoint to succeed Obama in the U.S. Senate.

There was no suggestion that the Obama administration’s dealings crossed any lines, but Emanuel’s name popped up repeatedly in Blagojevich’s corruption trial as prosecutors alleged the governor sought to sell the seat for everything from a Cabinet post to an ambassadorship. Following a hung jury on all but one charge, prosecutors have said they will retry Blagojevich as soon as January, a month before the Feb. 22 election.

That raises the prospect that Emanuel’s name will once again be in headlines with Blagojevich. There’s also the chance he could be called as a witness to bolster the defense case that Blagojevich was merely engaging in political horse-trading.

Some of the specifics of Emanuel’s dealings with Blagojevich have been shielded by the ongoing criminal case, and he has declined to publicly detail his role.

But the Tribune has learned more about taped conversations Emanuel had as well as what he told investigators about efforts to get Blagojevich to accept someone who had Obama’s approval. They offer a deeper glimpse into his late-inning involvement in negotiations over the seat.

A 2008 internal report by the new Obama administration as well as testimony at the trial outlined Emanuel’s role in delivering a list of approved candidates for Blagojevich to consider that included state Comptroller Dan Hynes, U.S. Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jan Schakowsky and Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth.

The report stated that Emanuel also presented Attorney General Lisa Madigan and former Blagojevich communications director Cheryle Jackson as additional options in at least one phone call to Blagojevich chief of staff John Harris before the governor was arrested by FBI agents at his home on Dec. 9, 2008.

“As the White House counsel concluded, Rahm did not engage in deal-making over the Senate seat with Gov. Blagojevich and his representatives,” Emanuel spokesman Rick Jasculca said Friday, on the eve of Emanuel’s return to Chicago to begin laying the groundwork for his anticipated run.

The internal report did not provide specifics on Emanuel’s phone conversations with Harris or on his Dec. 20 interview with federal investigators.

The Tribune has learned Emanuel told the investigators his motivation for offering other names was a concern by Obama’s transition team that Blagojevich had rejected their initial list of acceptable candidates. Emanuel said the administration was responding to a Fox News report that former state Senate President Emil Jones of Chicago — who was not on Obama’s short list — could be Blagojevich’s pick.

I’ve always liked getting to the heart of the matter—something the activist old media has no interest in doing during this election cycle.

November 2 is a mandate on whether America will remain a country based on the Constitutional values of Liberty and freedom, or whether we are headed to the dregs of communism and socialism embraced by the American left and its Democrat Party. Too extreme you say?

This point was made as clear as can be with the two rallies held recently on the Washington Mall.

Ignore the crowd size for a moment (Glenn Beck’s was much, much larger on Aug. 28) and you can even ignore the fact that unions clearly organized and used their funds to bus people to the event (astroturf, anyone?)

The clear choice was seen in the messages being displayed by the people at the two events.

The activist old media has largely—if not totally—ignored the fact that :

this rally had a large contingent of communists and socialists in the relatively small crowd. Communist and socialist web sites were promoting this rally.

The Associated Press slide show of yesterdays “One Nation” rally has more than 30 pictures and not a single one showing the communist and socialist messages being spread by these Obama, Reid and Pelosi supporters. Check out the photos and notice what is missing from the pictures sent out by the AP and pay close attention to the left wing, Democrat groups who put this event together.

Now check out the people the activist old media will not show you. (Video Posted in Part )They were there, loud and proud but )apparently the photographers could not find them. Americans For Prosperity found them and the communists and socialists were in plain view and wearing Obama-Biden shirts.

My point is this, this election could not be more clear, in what direction is America headed?

The choice is clear. On November 2, this circus needs to be sent a very clear message, pack that tent up and find another country for your freak show. Maybe Russia wants to give it another go.

When asked about the communist and socialists groups at the rally, Ben Jealous, head of the NAACP said that the Democrats party is a big tent and all groups are welcome. He clearly has no problem with the communists and socialists showing up and joining hands with Democrats at this event. Big tent.

Pre-rally, I brought up this point in a video on Liberty.com. Obama was not at the rally, but he might as well have been. His policies are what this group loves and it’s clear this is his idea of progress.

Despite months of planning the event was a bust. Sponsored by dozens of unions and groups such as the Communist Party USA, various socialist organizations, Code Pink, the racist Latino group La Raza and other extremist groups, organizers hoped to energize the left just ahead of the midterm elections just one month away. But the numbers that have turned out — even with the streets full of union-sponsored buses — pale in comparison to the Glen Beck rally that many feel the lefties were trying to emulate.

Not all media outlets have drunk the Kool-Aid, though. You have to hand it to the AP. Even as it waits until deep in the story, in its report the AP admitted that this rally was, “far smaller, with sparse groups lingering around the reflecting pool and other monuments.”

I last heard the old Soviet Union anthem as I left Moscow two weeks before the coup against Gorbachev in 1991. That pretty much marked the end of the line for the Old Left, which had invested so much in the success of “socialism in one country.”

Their children and grandchildren are with us today, marching in our own capital city and busily undermining every single institution in our nation. Their smiles don’t disguise the loathing they feel for what America is, but they do reflect their joy at what they hope she becomes.

Unfortunately for these useful idiots, malevolent fools and active seditionists, many of us remember the old USSR and what it looked like and what it smelled like. We’ve been hearing this same propaganda for decades; the only difference now is that they’re out and proud.

They sense victory. This is what victory looks like to them. This is paradise when the velvet glove comes off:

Organizers of Saturday’s “One Nation Working Together” rally at the Lincoln Memorial are proud of their diversity. Before the event, they predicted it would be the “most diverse march in history.” It turned out they were right. Looking around the rally, there were Teamsters Local 311, Service Employees International Union Local 1199, Communications Workers of America Local 2336, American Federation of Teachers Local 1, United Auto Workers Amalgamated Local 171, Transport Workers Union Local 100, and representatives of many, many other unions.

That’s a lot of diversity.

Karnell Dorris and Rose Anderson work in a nursing home in Detroit. They’re members of Local 79 of the Service Employees International Union, which chartered buses to bring them and hundreds of others to the rally. They left Detroit at about 8:00 pm Friday for the 13-hour drive to Washington. After spending all day at the rally, they were scheduled for a union dinner, after which they would overnight at a hotel, also paid for by Local 79.

Paul Blujus, a former construction worker who now works in health care in Buffalo, New York and who came to Washington aboard a bus chartered by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees/Civil Service Employees Association Local 1000. “Jobs — better jobs,” said Debra Winston, who came to the rally from Memphis on a bus chartered by SEIU Local 205. “Jobs,” said Mark West, who came from Charlotte, North Carolina aboard a bus chartered by United Steelworkers Local 850.

The union presence was so ubiquitous and so organized that it made for a kind of color coding in the crowd. Looking around, there were large groups of people bunched into separate areas, all wearing the same color T-shirts to mark their union affiliation. There were groups wearing the purple SEIU shirt, others wearing the red CWA shirt, others wearing the blue AFT shirt, and still others wearing green shirts and yellow shirts and so on. There were long rows of tables where union workers sat waiting to get people connected to their groups and their buses. There were thousands of union-printed signs.

Organizers will deny that the march was a total union job, compared to the more grassroots character of tea party gatherings. And it’s true that union allies like the NAACP also played a big part in staging “One Nation Working Together.” But it’s safe to say the rally would have been nothing without labor’s money and organizing strength.

On this beautiful day in Washington, there was just one thing on many minds, but few people seemed eager to admit it. The polls show Republicans headed for substantial gains in the November 2 elections, but most of the people at the rally just couldn’t accept the idea. “It ain’t happening,” said Rose Anderson.

The very idea of it made them angry. “I’m particularly offended by these people who want to take the nation back,” said Maida Odom, who came to the rally from Philadelphia on board a bus chartered by the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees/ AFSCME Local 1199. “I’m saddened that people haven’t risen above their bigotry. If you read the Republican Contract with America, you can see the bigotry in between every line.”

The people who run ANSWER are old-style Communists, supporters of just about every awful regime on the planet. They ran the big anti-war protests in the early months of the war in Iraq, sometimes to the embarrassment of more moderate anti-war forces. The presence of ANSWER gives any rally a touch of the extreme.

There were plenty of other extreme elements, too. The Communist Party USA took part. The War Resisters League. The Freedom Socialist Party, and several others. If the main organizers of the rally wanted to keep the kooky parts of their coalition away from public view, they didn’t succeed.

Overall, how big was the crowd? Before the rally, organizers made no secret of their determination that their turnout be bigger than that of the nonpolitical Glenn Beck rally at the Memorial on August 28. “We believe that our satellite photos will stack up nicely to his satellite photos,” NAACP president Ben Jealous told the New York Times. After the rally, however, there wasn’t so much talk about satellite photos; although thousands of people showed up, the crowd was visibly smaller than the Beck event. (Even despite the strong arming they applied to get union members there) Even with all that organizing muscle, they couldn’t turn out as many people as one man on talk radio and Fox News.

“One Nation” was scheduled to last from noon until 4:00 pm, but a lot of people headed for the exits well before the last speakers took the stage. By 2:45, when Jealous himself was at the microphone, they were streaming for the buses. As they walked, organizers herded people in the right direction. “OPEIU movin’ out! OPEIU movin’ out!” shouted one man, a organizer with the Office and Professional Employees International Union.
The unions came, and then they left.

~NOTE: Looking for an article that talked about the ‘scandal’ MSM, CSpan were using the 8/28 aerial views, super-imposing them & MISrepresenting it was the 10/2 nothing rally…

It was bound to happen that the organizers of this rally, the goal of which was decidedly to undermine the strength in numbers of the Tea Party, would claim to have brought together a larger number of people than Glenn Beck’s crew. Given the lack of evidence on this count, it’s certainly remotely possible, but claiming that it’s absolutely true based on one satellite image that no one was yet seen is a little, shall we say, premature. That said, it is a near certainty that there are more people congregated on the Mall today than there were on August 29th, given that there was no event scheduled to occur in the Mall on that date.

Update: The AP claims there is definitely no way there were more people here than during Restoring Honor

Also worthy of note is the protest sign in the clip proclaiming Beck and Sarah Palin racists, similar to the ones at the Chicago anti-Breitbart rally.